Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 4, 2012 3:18am-3:48am PST

3:18 am
there are many very successful people, all products of the boys club and girls club. i think the issue of the new building, which i am very much in support of reminds me, and i hate to date myself, but with the exception of women in law enforcement, and the facilities they ended up working at, the 10 district stations, at the time when women were accepted, it was 1975. as an eye witness, our law enforcement women were relegated to the basement of every station. a janitor closets were now makeshift showers and storage rooms.
3:19 am
i know the boys club. the new building was built in 1971 or 1972. with the exception of the girls club, very much the same issues with law-enforcement women. we now have issues with these young women members. their club was the old boys' club, a couple of rooms, no showers, no locker rooms. a much needed amenity for these young, bright women. i think to equate the issues of law enforcement and our own girls is very accurate.
3:20 am
i sing it out ways much of the opposition. i ask that you -- i think it outweighs the opposition. i urge you approve this, and i asked for your support and want to thank you very much. >> is there additional public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. i would just like to say in any urban setting, anytime you try to make any adjustments to any building in san francisco, there is going to be some people who are not completely on board with you. this organization has gone now to the community, and this project has been thoroughly
3:21 am
vetted. they have talked to knowledgeable people, people who know a lot about planning and architecture, and if they followed the aids virus most of the community leaders gave them. that is why they are here today. if you talk to 12 people you might have 12 different designs. the best possible outcome is presented today, and i urge you to support this. many years people dreamt about this, and a few years ago they got serious about planning it out, and it is time to make the dream a reality. >> is there an additional public comment?
3:22 am
>> good evening. i am the president of the mothers' club. my family has a long history and now of the club, dating back to when my father was a member when he was only 8 years old. he now serves on the board of directors for 15 years. my daughter has spent countless hours of the club for various sports and bonding time with friends. there are many opportunities we will never forget. the san francisco bay area has grown, which means the population has grown, and the needs of children have grown. for many families, the club provides a safe and fun place to spend time. the club is a place to go to have a sense of security, learn the meaning of teamwork, and learn respect. get a lot of members cannot
3:23 am
afford to participate in sports and theater programs elsewhere. the club does this for only $10. they want to increase other opportunities such as dance and martial arts. it is necessary to experiment. the expansion will provide more opportunities for thousands of kids. i wholeheartedly support the expansion of the boys and girls club, and i hope that you do, too. >> is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. i just have one question to ask the project sponsor. the man who has the apartment house across the street has mentioned he was contacted about a year ago regarding the project, but the testimony we
3:24 am
heard from the project owners said they heard about the project on january 13 of this year. would you explain the out reach? >> we have been friends for years. we both have been there all our lives, and i feel badly about the people because they said they did not get the first neighbor thing, but i met with them, and we administered the letters that planning gave us reach out, and we gave them notice. that is the only thing i can say. we tried to be up front. we have been meeting with people for over a year and as a half now. >> i have a question.
3:25 am
in looking at 829, i do not know if you have that, but it shows the elevation, which i think is under discussion, and it shows existing structure, and it shows the projected structure, and if this is an accurate drawing, it looks like the existing height is no more than the current window frame, which one would assume was no more than three or 4 feet. is that accurate? >> i believe this is intended to depict a cosmetic architectural enhancements. the third story i addition is actually set back 15 feet, so from this perspective it would not be readily apparent. this is more to show the addition of the panel's and some of the things the make it a
3:26 am
little nicer at the existing levels. >> of some of the other pages you show your shadows. there is a shadow that doesn't seem to change too much with the different possibilities, and you also have 23 and 22 that shows a little bit about the lines there that light would be cast, and also shows the top of the new edition has a slanting roof, as i believe? >> that is correct, the front and rear portions are towards -- those are sloping to fit within the height envelope and provide little additional measure of relief in terms of access to light. commissioner antonini: i guess the point i am getting at, a from the materials we received, the impact of the change in the
3:27 am
shadowing of the neighbors seems to be less severe than what was presented earlier today. >> we certainly did look at this project through the lens of the residential design guidelines. there is a zoning district and certainly wanted to look at sensitivity to light and air for neighbors. certainly in terms of the design of the addition, it is a balancing act of a number of different factors. when you combine with the proposed 15-foot setback, the aggregate separation there, which amounts to having a vacant san francisco lot between you and adjoining properties, at the residential design level, it is compatible with the guidelines.
3:28 am
and the zoning the administrator would have to find that a little bit further. commissioner antonini: i tend to feel that way, i think the project is doing about as much as they can to mitigate the impact for adjacent alleys, but i am very much in favor of its even though i did not grow up in san francisco, i remember reading in newspapers and the early '60s about playing in the tournament of champions, we dreamed about being able to play at that level sunday. we can never beat the boys club because they were pretty good. i think it is a great project. commissioner borden: perhaps the acting zoning the administrator could talk about what difference it would make
3:29 am
regarding shadow? >> the question is very appropriate, to clarify perhaps information that was discussed earlier, the physical portion of the variance is limited to the rear most 20 feet of the proposed addition. correct me if i am characterizing this -- it would be a 14-foot setback from the poverty line, that which would require the variance portion in the front of that, it is entirely within the right. commissioner borden: therefore, the shuttle would be the same if you built without the variance? >> excepting the 20 feet, it is
3:30 am
correct. gosh i think that is correct. i think it would actually cause the same shadow issue if you built it without the variants, pretty much of the rear yard, it is already taken out by the structure but it is kind of interesting that it requires a variance because there is already something in the yard. from a planning standpoint, we have established that there aren't any issues really there, and the problems that the neighbors have outlined it would be a problem regardless. it is a much-needed improvement, i am very familiar. i have really enjoyed my time with seeing the great work that they do, hearing the kids sing and perform. i know it is a great public amenity, not only just north beach, but it is exactly the
3:31 am
kind of necessary and desirable project we would want to move forward, and i know that they meet the upper grades. it is a very crowded environment and they're definitely needs to be improvements. i move to approve. >> second. >> the motion on the floor for -- commissioner sugaya: i just -- the testimony that was given and the drawings that were shown that with the shadows i believe were from people that live at 1856 powell, is that correct? we're talking about a backyard situation, not any public rally. given the location of that back yard, whether this building variants moved back and forth
3:32 am
east west has no bearing on the shadows that would take place at the rear of 1856. in order to affect the shadows, you would have to narrow the building north-south and in essence, bring the building back from the north elevation. i think it ends up being an extremely difficult design issue if not impossible. i wanted to make that observation. commissioner moore: i think the setback is really what matters, and as we often find ourselves at least in residential editions, we do not judge on light and air. except that we recognize light wells in residential adjacencies, so i am very comfortable. i think it is a skillful building, and for all intents
3:33 am
and purposes, not as much of building as it can be right now, i am very supportive of it. >> thank you, commissionaires. at the motion is for approval with conditions. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you. [applause] president miguel: can we take a 10-minute break? >> i would also like to close the public hearing on the very end as well. very quick remarks, firstly, much along the lines of what commissioner sugaya had indicated, the impact from the
3:34 am
shuttle perspective on the property, they are independent of the matter which is subject to the variants. the granting of the variants has no impact on that shadow or lack thereof. i think it is also worth noting that the properties really do have an overwhelming tendency to be of a non-complying nature. properties are squarely located in the rear yard, and there is a valid argument to occupy some space in this property is, in fact, consistent. that said, i am inclined to grant the variance. this decision is not final until the decision letter is issued. it is subject to a 10-day repeal window before the board of appeals and if anyone would like a copy of that letter, and give their name and contact information.
3:35 am
president miguel: with that, we'll take a 10-minute break. >> you are now on item number 16, 1737 post st. >> good evening, the item before you is a request for a discretionary review involving the vacant commercial space previously occupied by retail stores in two a small self- service restaurant. located within the interior of
3:36 am
the contested west mall in the zoning district. the case was continued from the december a planning commission hearing and i will provide you with a brief summary of the case. the request was for the of learning center. it appears to qualify as form of retail use, requiring conditional use authorization. the proposed restaurant is consistent with the purpose and the japan town special use district. it specializes in selling beverages, snacks, and desserts. it contributes to an over concentration of small quick
3:37 am
food outlets that currently exist. as far as updates provided to the planning department staff, the project sponsor's proposal menu, the supplemental information in regard to the project sponsor's affiliation for consideration, if you have any questions, i am available. president miguel: d.r. request er? >> my name is robert, i am speaking on behalf of the request. at the last hearing, the primary issue of concern was whether the
3:38 am
proposed cafe would be located on the corner of the mall. it was a disguised form of a retail operation associated with the chain. in response to questions from this commission, about connections, if any, the applicant repeatedly denied that he had any connection with them except it would be one of the vendors of the products he would be utilizing in his business. he was unequivocal that it was his only connection and it was no organizational connection. we have provided documentation from city records and the secretary of state that show that these representations to our community and to this commission are not true. the city and state records show that he is the founder and director and officer of liu and
3:39 am
associates, inc. which is htthe owner of the corporation. it is the address for the japan center, specifically the unit that he proposes to insert this cafe. these documents show that he cafe is tied closely to the chain and that his representation in this regard was false. with this connection established, and the other aspects of this proposal fall into place.
3:40 am
as this commission will recall, it was scratched out and handwritten then. the substantial similarity in the key elements of the grass- roots associated, particularly the tapioca balls that identify what the establishment is associated with. nothing about this proposal from the start has been on the up and up. the original permits for some of the work that has been done has never been obtained. there has been no communication to speak of with the community. and now we have the documentation and the representations' about the ownership and nature of this
3:41 am
project as representative of this commission. as we argued before, you know that the japan town community has been engaged in a process to ensure the authentic character of the community of's heritage. we are generally opposed to a formula retail with a few exceptions, and the proposal being drafted, we believe that the cafe adds nothing to the authenticity of the community, it is duplicative of services already present in japan's center. it provides improper competitive advantage because of the
3:42 am
relationship with kobe bento. the project permit should be denied, thank you very much. president miguel: any speakers in support of the d.r. requester? >> and good evening, commissioners. i am the director of programs and community affairs. i will keep this short period based on the evidence provided in your packet, the link being 75% partner, being the owner currently here in the city, this makes it pretty clear that the cafe could really just be kobe bento in disguise. i don't mind the new business in
3:43 am
japan town, i think that good business is great. it is something we need for the future, but by using the less deceptive nature, excuse me. using deceptive measures is not my idea of good business. it doesn't set a good precedent for japan town or the city. there are and goals of the time. it supports that fabric instead of working against its. i would like to know that new businesses moving into japan town would have the community's best interested in mind instead of finding ways to avoid its.
3:44 am
i strongly support the discretionary review. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners adnd director. i'm a member of the japantown planning organizing committee. i would ask the commission to support the planning process. we really have looked seriously at the kinds of businesses that we think will support japan town and contribute to the long- term prosperity and continuation. when we were in the process, one of the things that happened is -- one of the restrictions was on formula retail because of the nature of formula retail or you
3:45 am
can out compete source product and really drive our small businesses out of competition. and we need to maintain the small business space. we lost one of our centennial businesses, 100-year-old japanese market that, because of the nature of the small family business, founded more and more difficult to compete with chains tores -- stores. that is the nature of what we are trying to fight. in this case, we are very distressed that this business did not try to make links to the community, that they did things under the table, proceeding with the drilling through the floor of the building into the garage without getting permits. and now we find that they have
3:46 am
misrepresented themselves blatantly, not only to us, but to this commission. i don't think this is a good basis for coming to japan town. i hope you will deny the application. >> [unintelligible] speaking about this issue, clearly this permit is a violation of the special use district. we have had other vendors in the special use district such as starbucks on the night because of the unfair competition that
3:47 am
they would have. i know that what happened at the pharmacy business, it just couldn't compete against the chains. the are not here today because they fear that the owner might retaliate against them if they did. i urge you to please support the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on